Advertisement

Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 514–520 | Cite as

Utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with perflubutane in evaluating indications for diagnostic percutaneous tumor biopsy in a case of hepatic sclerosed hemangioma

  • Yusuke Ando
  • Masatoshi Ishigami
  • Yoji Ishizu
  • Teiji Kuzuya
  • Takashi Honda
  • Yoshiki Hirooka
Case Report
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

Sclerosed hemangioma is difficult to distinguish from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or liver metastasis due to their imaging resemblance, thus pathological diagnosis is often required; however, percutaneous biopsy entails a risk of dissemination if the tumor is malignant. Perflubutane, a contrast agent of ultrasonography, has a characteristic feature of being phagocytosed by Kupffer cells. Hepatic malignant lesions contain few or no Kupffer cells, therefore, they are shown as a contrast defect. We report a case in which contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) with perflubutane was useful to evaluate indications for percutaneous tumor biopsy. A 69-year-old woman had a hypoattenuating mass with slight enhancement in peripheral lesion of the tumor in the arterial phase on dynamic computed tomography. From the arterial phase to the delayed phase, the hypoattenuating area was gradually and slightly enhanced, and peripheral enhancement also increased gradually, appearing as ring enhancement. We considered intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, liver metastasis, and sclerosed hemangioma as differential diagnoses. Most of the tumor did not display contrast defects in the post-vascular phase on CEUS, therefore, we considered the possibility of malignancy was low and performed percutaneous biopsy. The tumor was diagnosed as sclerosed hemangioma. CEUS may be useful in evaluating indications for diagnostic percutaneous tumor biopsy.

Keywords

Sclerosed hemangioma Contrast enhanced ultrasonography Biopsy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Yusuke Ando and the co-authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human/animal rights

All human studies have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the patient for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Karhunen PJ. Benign hepatic tumours and tumour like conditions in men. J Clin Pathol. 1986;39:183–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shimada Y, Takahashi Y, Iguchi H, et al. A hepatic sclerosed hemangioma with significant morphological change over a period of 10 years: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2013;7:139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Makhlouf HR, Ishak KG. Sclerosed hemangioma and sclerosing cavernous hemangioma of the liver: a comparative clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study with emphasis on the role of mast cells in their histogenesis. Liver. 2002;22:70 – 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mathieu D, Rahmouni A, Vasile N, et al. Sclerosed liver hemangioma mimicking malignant tumor at MR imaging: pathologic correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;4:506–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamashita Y, Shimada M, Taguchi K, et al. Hepatic sclerosing hemangioma mimicking a metastatic liver tumor: report of a case. Surg Today. 2000;30:849–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doyle DJ, Khalili K, Guindi M, et al. Imaging features of sclerosed hemangioma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caturelli E, Ghittoni G, Roselli P, et al. Fine needle biopsy of focal liver lesions: the hepatologist’s point of view. Liver Transpl. 2004;10:S26–9 (review).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamazaki K, Matsubara N, Mori M, et al. Needle tract implantation of hepatocellular carcinoma after ultrasonically guided needle liver biopsy: a case report. Hepatogastroenterology. 1995;42:601–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yanagisawa K, Moriyasu F, Miyahara T, et al. Phagocytosis of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles by Kupffer cells. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;33:318–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Takahashi M, Maruyama H, Ishibashi H, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with perflubutane microbubble agent: evaluation of differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hatanaka K, Kudo M, Minami Y, et al. Differential diagnosis of hepatic tumors: value of contrast-enhanced harmonic sonography using the newly developed contrast agent. Sonazoid Intervirol. 2008; 51(Suppl 1):61–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harman M, Nart D, Acar T, et al. Primary mesenchymal liver tumors: radiological spectrum, differential diagnosis, and pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:1316–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caseiro-Alves F, Brito J, Araujo AE, et al. Liver hemangioma: common and uncommon findings and how to improve the differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1544–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mori H, Ikegami T, Imura S, et al. Sclerosed hemangioma of the liver: report of a case and review of the literature. Hepatol Res. 2008;38:529–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miyamoto S, Oshita A, Daimaru Y, et al. Hepatic Sclerosed Hemangioma: a case report and review of the literature. BMC Surg. 2015;15:45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi BI, Lee JM, Han JK. Imaging of intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29:548–57, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hida T, Nishie A, Tajima T, et al. Sclerosed hemangioma of the liver: possible diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28:235–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Terminology and Diagnostic Criteria Committee, Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine. Ultrasound diagnostic criteria for hepatic tumors. J Med Ultrason (2001) 2014; 41:113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver—update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39:187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hatanaka K, Kudo M, Minami Y, et al. Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography for diagnosis of hepatic malignancies: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT. Oncology. 2008;75(Suppl 1):42–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moriyasu F, Itoh K. Efficacy of perflubutane microbubble-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization and detection of focal liver lesions: phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patel S, Saito A, Yoneda Y, et al. Comparing enhancement and washout patterns of hepatic lesions between sonazoid-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography. J Med Ultrason (2001) 2010;37:167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Gastroenterology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yusuke Ando
    • 1
  • Masatoshi Ishigami
    • 1
  • Yoji Ishizu
    • 1
  • Teiji Kuzuya
    • 1
  • Takashi Honda
    • 1
  • Yoshiki Hirooka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyNagoya University Graduate School of MedicineNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations